Eliminate the dead spot by training hard and busting your as&'. This thread is BS . We are all different .what works for Froome won't work for Valverde . It's that simple . Hard work is the only thing that will make you faster ( and PED's)

Lv426 wrote:Eliminate the dead spot by training hard and busting your as&'. This thread is BS . We are all different .what works for Froome won't work for Valverde . It's that simple . Hard work is the only thing that will make you faster ( and PED's)

The article is basically the author's idea of what he thinks is an 'improved pedal stroke'. There isn't anything in the way of good testing to verify that the technique really is better. But of course, that doesn't mean that it isn't better, only that it hasn't been proven or convincingly shown ...

A confusing point to me is the statement -

"We then had him pedal heel down. His perceived exertion went up quickly. What’s more interesting is that he was putting more power into the pedals than the trainer. The extra force he was putting into the pedals was not reaching the rear wheel, making heel down a less efficient pedalling style".

I don't understand how he could put more POWER into the pedals without that power reaching the rear wheel. Perhaps it's just poor wording and might have been phased better as "he was putting more non-tangetal force into the pedals ..."

Been loaned a set of infocranks which provide a large amount of data about pedalling dynamics. I tried Noel's technique and it is very inefficient. If Noel had taken up the multiple offers to test his wild **** theory he would understand this. Guess this is what happens when you just have observation to go from. And observation from 65 years ago.

CoachFergie wrote:Been loaned a set of infocranks which provide a large amount of data about pedalling dynamics. I tried Noel's technique and it is very inefficient. If Noel had taken up the multiple offers to test his wild **** theory he would understand this. Guess this is what happens when you just have observation to go from. And observation from 65 years ago.

My rigorous observation of Jacques has revealed the real reason for his prowess in time trials. That hair style is clearly superior in a man Vs clock battle and this explains all. I mean just look at the awesomeness in the photo above.

JayKosta wrote:The article is basically the author's idea of what he thinks is an 'improved pedal stroke'. There isn't anything in the way of good testing to verify that the technique really is better. But of course, that doesn't mean that it isn't better, only that it hasn't been proven or convincingly shown ...

A confusing point to me is the statement -

"We then had him pedal heel down. His perceived exertion went up quickly. What’s more interesting is that he was putting more power into the pedals than the trainer. The extra force he was putting into the pedals was not reaching the rear wheel, making heel down a less efficient pedalling style".

I don't understand how he could put more POWER into the pedals without that power reaching the rear wheel. Perhaps it's just poor wording and might have been phased better as "he was putting more non-tangetal force into the pedals ..."

JayKosta wrote:..."We then had him pedal heel down. His perceived exertion went up quickly. What’s more interesting is that he was putting more power into the pedals than the trainer. The extra force he was putting into the pedals was not reaching the rear wheel, making heel down a less efficient pedalling style"....

Unweighting is not as effective when pedalling heels down style ?

---My confusion is about why the author(s) said that more POWER was being put into the pedals, and that POWER was not reaching the rear wheel.

POWER is a specific technical term about the amound of WORK done in a period of time, and WORK is also a technical term - usually defined in terms of raising an amount of weight (or mass) up from the ground (against the force of gravity).

From a techincal view, if X horsepower is applied to the pedals, then that same X horsepower should reach the rear wheel - minus very small loss due to friction.

If the pedalling style causes effort to be applied to the pedals in a non-tangental direction, then there isn't as much POWER really being applied to the pedals - it's wasted physical effort (for example pushing straight down on the pedal at 12 o'clock can be a lot of effort without any POWER being generated).

The author's use of the word POWER is confusing because it indicates that the author doesn't really understand the technical terminology, and that makes me question whether there are other errors, etc.

The issue of 'heel down', isn't a concern to me. Perhaps the cyclist hadn't trained using that technique, so he couldn't perform it to its best effect.

I believe the authors didn't realize that the Vector pedals would correctly calculate the power when ridden in a heel down position. I also believe that they had too much faith in the Kickr's accuracy. They proved themselves too uninformed to allow me any faith in their work.

CoachFergie wrote:Been loaned a set of infocranks which provide a large amount of data about pedalling dynamics. I tried Noel's technique and it is very inefficient. If Noel had taken up the multiple offers to test his wild **** theory he would understand this. Guess this is what happens when you just have observation to go from. And observation from 65 years ago.

No, I discovered the secret of Anquetil's mysterious extra power from each pedal stroke when around 1997 I set about trying to combine arm and leg power and succeeded in perfecting the simple technique without ever seeing a video of his pedalling action. It was the appearance of this video in 2001 that confirmed we were using identical techniques. How did you generate the same pedal power at 12, 1 and 2 o'c as what you applied at 3 o'c when testing my technique ? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CpY4Ip7Jpc8

No mystery at all. Anquetil clearly had a better combination of VO2max, fractional utilisation of his VO2max and efficiency than his opponents at the time. Someone had to win the genetic lottery and be part of the environment to take him to success at the time.

Your videos prove nothing about your theory.

Apply more power in one area and you apply less in another. The Infocrank showed this. Same with one legged pedalling, or trying to "scrape mud off the sole" through the bottom of the stroke. All very inefficient compared to mashing.

CoachFergie wrote:Apply more power in one area and you apply less in another. The Infocrank showed this.

Of course it did because that's what happens when you try to extend the power from each pedal stroke over 180 deg., you are splitting your brain's concentration, giving an equal amount to your weakest muscles. With Anquetil's method the most powerful muscles of each leg get total concentration over 180 deg. as they apply maximal torque where legs of all other pedalling styles are effectively idling without reducing power in the rest of the power stroke.

CoachFergie wrote:Apply more power in one area and you apply less in another. The Infocrank showed this.

Of course it did because that's what happens when you try to extend the power from each pedal stroke beyond 180 deg., you are splitting your brain's concentration, giving an equal amount to your weakest muscles. With Anquetil's method the most powerful muscles of each leg get total concentration over 180 deg. as they apply maximal torque where legs of all other pedalling styles are effectively idling without reducing power in the rest of the power stroke.

CoachFergie wrote:Remind me what are the most powerful muscles of the leg again and where they best apply power to the pedals?

Including the hip as part of the leg, the glutes and quads, but Anquetil used his glutes in a way no other pedalling style does. He used them to drive a maximal tangential force through 12 and 1 o'c

" Lance's agile, toes down pedaling style may be visually reminiscent of 5 time Tour De France Champion Jacques Anquetil. Cyclingnews discussed Lance Armstrong with Jean-Yves Donor. Mr. Donor covers cycling for Paris daily Le Figaro and is head of the International Association of Cycling Journalists. We asked Donor if the comparison of Lance with Anquetil is appropriate.

"Well, not really," said Donor. "Anquetil was an elegant rider who was really a time trial specialist in his day. His riding style was so smooth he looked like he was just sailing along. Anquetil was very powerful in his rear end, and used this to drive his pedaling, while not moving his upper body." "

All current attempts to improve pedalling technique have been unsuccessful. Gimmickcranks, oval chainrings and special pedalling techniques.

Using your method lead to lower efficiency and less power. So does gimmickcranks. A para rider forced to pedal in circles for years instantly improves in efficiency when using a counter weight. Some of us have real data to show this.

Your have video and assumptions from nutters like yourself and journalists more concerned about telling a story than the science of cycling performance.

CoachFergie wrote:All current attempts to improve pedalling technique have been unsuccessful. Gimmickcranks, oval chainrings and special pedalling techniques.

Using your method lead to lower efficiency and less power. So does gimmickcranks. A para rider forced to pedal in circles for years instantly improves in efficiency when using a counter weight. Some of us have real data to show this.

Your have video and assumptions from nutters like yourself and journalists more concerned about telling a story than the science of cycling performance.

They are not attempts to improve technique, they are attempts to get better results from the same techniques by changing equipment, an impossible task. what special techniques were tested. As for that para rider, you don't need research to prove there is an improvement, all you need is commonsense. This can be easily explained, the inertia of the counterweight made it much easier to get his leg through the most difficult sector of the pedalling circle between 10 - 1 o'c. The problem with much of this research that proves what does not work to improve performance is, they never explain why it does not work.